Fowler v. New York City Housing Authority

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fowler v. New York City Housing Authority

243 A.D.2d 284, 663 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9667

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 284 (Fowler v. New York City Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fowler v. New York City Housing Authority, 243 A.D.2d 284, 663 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9667 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this negligence action premised on allegedly inadequate security measures, plaintiffs claim that his assailants were not residents of the building or invitees is based on his assumption that since he did not recognize them and has not seen them since the attack, they must have been intruders. Such conclusions are speculative and insufficient as a matter of law to establish proximate cause (Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 238 AD2d 187; Maria S. v Willow Enters., 234 AD2d 177, 178-179) and will not survive defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Luis Gonzalez, J.), entered July 3, 1996, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this negligence action premised on allegedly inadequate security measures, plaintiffs claim that his assailants were not residents of the building or invitees is based on his assumption that since he did not recognize them and has not seen them since the attack, they must have been intruders. Such conclusions are speculative and insufficient as a matter of law to establish proximate cause (Tolliver v New York City Hous. Auth., 238 AD2d 187; Maria S. v Willow Enters., 234 AD2d 177, 178-179) and will not survive defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

We have considered plaintiff’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Rosenberger, Wallach, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 284, 663 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9667, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fowler-v-new-york-city-housing-authority-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack